JS, is this your first time on the internets?

Wm

Yup, that about sums it up.

- Mike

Solo Poster Who Shall Remain Nameless: "Sky is blue"

Innocent Bystander: "Ok, wait... so your point is that the sky is blue."

Solo Poster Who Shall Remain Nameless: " *The* sky is blue?? *THE* sky is blue? There you go, putting words in my mouth!! You people are UNBELIEVABLE! Are you a psychic? Do you have psychic powers? Do you read minds? How the hell can you know what's in my mind! You don't know. You just don't know. You have no knowledge. Yet you have no problem attributing words to me that I *clearly* did not say. And you call yourself an Objectivist... Christ, this website has reached a new low. I said: Sky is Blue. Skyy is Blue!! I really don't see how I can make it any clearer to you knuckle-heads. Skyy... you've never heard of Skyy vodka?... is Blue. Look it up. Go inform yourself, for a change. (Yeah, maybe I made a typo, but don't go all ad hominem on me pointing out my typos.) Surely you idiots can figure this out. Or do I have to spell *everything* out for you?? Why would I waste my time doing that?"

Innocent Bystander: "Oh, ok, so you are saying Skyy vodka is blue."

Solo Poster Who Shall Remain Nameless: "Not the *VODKA* you moron, the *bottle*!! The *BOTTLE* that Skyy vodka comes in... is BLUE! Christ, this website has hit *another* new... even lower... low. I can't take this. You people are just incredible. I don't know why I even bother. This episode encapsulates everything that's ever been wrong with the Objectivist movement in any respect whatsoever since the beginning of time -- right here in this little discussion. I'm outta here. You dipsticks can wallow in your own irrationality and evasions."

Your comments are truly unhonorable.  You have twisted Dan's comments and his well reasoned arguments, attempting to make him look like a fool. He has most certainly shown that he is not.

Where on Earth do you think the concept of individual rights come from, except from our objective "needs" as humans living in a society?  Does Dan really need to explain that when he refers to "needs" he's referring to objective needs of man qua man? 

You say:
"To do that you've had to ignore two areas Ayn Rand discussed: 1) Your rights end where the rights of others begin; 2) The validity of charity."

Your rights end where the rights of other begin is an important concept to understand.  So how does one deal with a mob or gang or government that wants to break your rights?  This is what Dan is addressing.  The mob or gang or government and those associated with it (including its citizens) that attempt to break your rights lose their rights in turn.  Their rights end where yours begin.

John Drake

According to Shayne, I am a stupid, illogical, emotionalist, zombie ARI-worshiping dipshit worthy of moral condemnation.  I'm through with him.

--Dan Edge

sjw, YOU blamed ME and everyone else who doesn't understand you. I simply pointed out you have not stayed on the same point for more then one post.

EDIT: I just re-read all of your posts on this thread and there is one point that you make consistently and in every post. That I and the people of this forum are stupid, confused, ignorant and contemptible.

EDIT 2: I just did a spot review of early threads you have participated in and you have been a drive-by poster from the beginning. You can see the [insult] [argument] [insult] pattern in every post.

Wm

If you are confused then that should tell you something, but instead you blame me for your confusion. That says everything anyone needs to know about your moral stature.

That's OK, you've got Toohey--I mean Linz--behind you, so you must be right...

PS: Your "drive by poster" comment is stupid. I'm always willing to explain myself, in private, to anyone who asks for it. I'm just not willing to explain in *this* forum, and Linz demonstrates very clearly why.

I try to get people to take more care, more due diligence before condeming others to DEATH, and I'm a "sociopath". You're pure and utter filth Linz.

You said of Shitty-on-Principle Shayne:

I find it contemptible that you dance from criticism to criticism just long enough to cause confusion and then move on pronouncing that it is everyone left confused that is ignorant and preachy. You are a drive-by poster, showering bullets of insult laced mystification on all those who try to pin you down to a coherent argument.

The man is a sociopath. Everyone in his universe deserves moral censure except him. He's FITH (Fucked In The Head). Don't let him wind you up.

Linz

... again I was quoting your post. We both agree that an individualist commander would not sacrifice his troops. Also, I am on no one's side but my own yet you continually lump me in as one of those you would 'morally condemn'. Our "little spat" is the result of your inability to recognize my honest tone despite your continued assault. I seek discussion, you seek a spat. I will not grant it to you publicly or privately.

Which gets us to the heart of the matter: I find it contemptible that I would have to teach self-proclaimed Objectivists who have the gall preach their ignorant war philosophy what issues they need to take into account.

I find it contemptible that you dance from criticism to criticism just long enough to cause confusion and then move on pronouncing that it is everyone left confused that is ignorant and preachy. You are a drive-by poster, showering bullets of insult laced mystification on all those who try to pin you down to a coherent argument.

Wm

"... How can it get any simpler than that?"

It's only "simple" to you because you are oversimplifying, you think that truisms are an answer here and they're not. But even your truisms are flawed. The proper role of government is to protect individual rights. You use the word "need" but as has already been pointed out, it's not your "needs" that's the issue, it's individual rights. "Need" denotes far more than "right". You need food, but have no right to mine. Maybe you mean the same thing but your terminology is pointlessly different than Rand's, and technically speaking, utterly wrong.

But this is all a tangent. I asked you a specific question. You (finally) gave a specific answer, which I demonstrated was based on collectivist premises. Instead of facing this, you revert to repeating truisms.

I think the explanation is that you have conflicting motivations. I think you sense at some level a need to understand ARI's position in a principled manner. Yet instead of facing the issue on its own terms, on your own terms, you face it as an apologist, trying to dream up ways to rationalize it.

But I'm at a loss as to how to help you snap out of it. You are grossly and intransigently oversimplifying things. To do that you've had to ignore two areas Ayn Rand discussed: 1) Your rights end where the rights of others begin; 2) The validity of charity. You are also working from flawed assumptions about how an individualist military would work. You talk in terms of us sacrificing our soldiers, when in an individualist military men would be their on their own terms, they would not be putting themselves up for "sacrifice" (indeed, *everyone* on your side has collectivist premises about how the military should work).

I think that is as much as I'm going to say about my position on the matter in this forum. I find it contemptible that I would have to teach self-proclaimed Objectivists who have the gall preach their ignorant war philosophy what issues they need to take into account. You're advocating a position that if adopted would lead to innocent people dying, you damn well should be careful about what you say, but you're not, and you deserve moral condemnation for it, not lessons on how to think.

oops

Surely, it must be said that the life of any soldier or an ally, is of an exceedingly greater value to that of a child or mother of the enemy. To give ones ememies children a more superior value than the safety and well-being of our own soldiers, is in blatant breach of human rights in accordance to our constitutions and doctrines.

What really angers and surprises me, is the fact, that we consistently hear of our own soldiers being arrested and held to account for so-called civilian injury or even murder. But when did you ever hear, anyone with the balls to challenge this at a human rights level. A classic example, is the soldier who shot an iraqi whilst being filmed by a so-called observer. It was common practise for corpses to be bobby trapped with explosives. The victim/enemy had a severe stomach wound, our soldier had every right and it was his duty to the rest of his patrol, to consider his and their safety over that of a mortally wounded enemy, who could have been booby trapped. To shoot the guy was the best option for that situation. However this hit international news as an abomination, by arm chair critics and leftie pacificists. And another thing.

(she jumps up higher on her soap box and talks louder). Bloody journalists or war correspondents. "Hold the war - journo coming through." I admit to feeling zero remorse when one of these idiots gets shot or taken hostage. I am very content to let the military get on with their job and do their own reporting. After all, they are on MY SIDE.

The tables need to be seriously turned upon the maker's and enforcers of foreign policy.

Wm, I presume that you consider yourself sympathetic to Objectivism, or even Objectivist. If so, then I do not understand why you should wish to think in terms of altruism. An individualist commander would not "sacrifice" his troops.

A government is not an individual, yet it must act in the interest of a collection of individuals: those that comprise its citizenship.  The principle I've referrend to is that a government ought to act in the interest of its citizens. 

To put it on an individual level:  *I* need my government to protect *my* life and property for the long term.  I need my government to eliminate threats to my freedom.  If people in another country threaten to impose on my freedom, I need my government to do whatever it must to defend me.  How can it get any simpler than that?  There's no sacrifice involved.  The sacrifice would be supporting a military policy that benefited civilians in an enemy country at *my* expense (in loss of property or loss of life).

--Dan Edge

In my opinion your reply is incoherent and would take several more back-and-forth posts to clear up. Clearly our little spat isn't as important as the main thread here so if you wish to resolve it take it up with me in private.

I will address one point: "Honestly, why are you here then? I don't understand -- if it sucks then leave..."

But I have already left for the most part. I don't contribute to this forum anymore except when I want some information in return (such as trying to figure out what Dan is thinking).

The only 'collective gain' a moral nation pursues in war is a restoration of justice and the securing of liberty.

Wm

Does not a military commander face decisions everday of "whose lives we're going to sacrifice, and who gets to decide whose lives are sacrificed?" After all, which unit will be risked and for what military goal is a typical decision of an Army commander. They also must decide whether to level a hospital to ensure theirs and their unit's safety or to leave it be and 'sacrifice' troops searching it for the enemy room to room.

Wm

There are multiple problems with your answer Dan.

First, it's vague. I don't know why this has to be explained, but "do what's best in the long term" could be given as an answer to any moral question. It's not an answer, it's a very general standard, and one that no one here would disagree with--which should be a hint that you might have said exactly nothing.

Except that it's worse, because you have said something: You have in fact perverted what would be a valid and uncontroversial standard: it's intended to apply to one's own life; you have corrupted it by applying it to society in general. By ripping the idea of "do what's best in the long term" from its individualist context and instead applying to society in general, you are advocating nothing short of collectivism (utilitarianism to be specific).

E.g., implicit in what you said is that sacrificing some lives in order to save more lives is a good idea (that's what it means to advocate *net* gains to a *nation*, i.e., to "society"). This leaves the obvious question of whose lives we're going to sacrifice, and who gets to decide whose lives are sacrificed.

I was starting a conversation by pointing out what I took from your quote. My understanding remains that you are attacking not the principle in that quote, but the application of it. While it may be insulting it is what I think. I'm not guessing at what you are saying (since I can clearly quote what you said) but what you are meaning. And I still don't understand what you mean when you say:

Almost any strategy could be defended by vaguely pointing to the "long term" and then claiming things will work out better. You rationalize the vagueness by claiming not the be a strategist; the truth is you have no right to philosophize over the matter if you can't concertize your thinking.

The only insults are from you towards me and I only endure them because I think you have something to show me regarding my thinking about this issue. "This is how the people around here behave--like chidren brainwashed by progressive education into thinking that their wild and stupid guesses have inherent validity just because they said it." Again, not sure how to say this in a different but here goes: I'm trying to understand what you are claiming and how it applies to the principle regarding enemy civilians in war and the application of said principle.

"The really sad part is that the old men do it just as much as the young ones." Honestly, why are you here then? I don't understand -- if it sucks then leave (perhaps you are waiting for the 'dramatic final post' button I've been advocating).

Wm

Wm: You did not see why my criticism of "just do what's best in the long term" was valid, so instead of asking why it was valid, you insulted me and declared I advocated short-term thinking.

"No one knows what you are talking about other then what you have written here."

Let me finish this for you: "And therefore, I can make up whatever stupid guesses I want and attack you for my guesses instead of asking what you mean."

This is how the people around here behave--like chidren brainwashed by progressive education into thinking that their wild and stupid guesses have inherent validity just because they said it. The really sad part is that the old men do it just as much as the young ones. They've learned nothing from Objectivism.

"Do you think it is wrong for us to take any additional military risks other costs in order to prevent the death of innocents in the aggressor country?"

If, in the long term, the result of preventing innocent deaths in an enemy country is a net loss to the defending nation (in lives or property), then it is wrong.   If it is a net gain to the defending nation, then it should be done.  That is the principle.

--Dan Edge

No one knows what you are talking about other then what you have written here. My post was my attempt to summarize this:

I also never asked you for a specific formula, though I think your answer "if it benefits the defending nation in the long term" is vague and useless. Almost any strategy could be defended by vaguely pointing to the "long term" and then claiming things will work out better. You rationalize the vagueness by claiming not the be a strategist; the truth is you have no right to philosophize over the matter if you can't concertize your thinking.

You said benefits in the long term was vague and useless since any strategery could be defended with the phrase somehow. I pointed out that we are faced with choices everyday that could be evaded with the same useless phrase. Your post, the only one I have responded to on this thread, struck me as a departure from honest criticisms, which I was learning from, and onto the deep end where 'pathetically' I am unable to follow.

Wm

You don't know what in the hell you're talking about. I mean, everything you said--it's totally clueless presumption. You have no idea what's going on in my head, no idea what I think the relevant principles are here, but because I am critical of your idols, you grope for some sort of critique. You're really pathetic.

Defending a plan by vaguely pointing to the 'long term' and rationalizing that things could be better is a curious straw man to draw up. Every day we are faced with decisions and the moral, successful man considers these choices by applying principles to make decisions for his long term life and pursuit of happiness. I would agree with you if we were exploring the difficulties and dangerous in considering long term consequences of actions, but you are saying that this thinking is a chimera. You are undercutting a principle by denying the ability of man to use it.

Wm

"You have asserted that my position is false without justifying that assertion, and without offering an alternative view."

You say that as if I have some logical responsibility to offer an alternative. I don't. You on the other hand do have a logical responsibility to make your meaning clear, as you are the one doing the asserting here.

"This is why Chris and I are guessing what your viewpoint actually is."

Nothing gives you the logical right to guess and put your baseless guesses into my mouth, creating a burden on me to then disclaim your bad guesses.

"This is also the reason why I haven’t responded to you in depth. Your criticisms are unclear."

I don't want an in depth response, and I don't recall offering a critique. I just wanted you to answer the very simple question I put to you over and over again. I'm just trying to understand whether you really mean what you seem to mean.

"My point, Shayne, is that the question of how much money or how many lives it is worth to protect innocent civilians in an enemy nation is a wrong-headed question."

Here you go again putting words in my mouth. *I* never asked this question of you. You pretend I asked a question I didn't and then don't answer the one I actually asked.

I also never asked you for a specific formula, though I think your answer "if it benefits the defending nation in the long term" is vague and useless. Almost any strategy could be defended by vaguely pointing to the "long term" and then claiming things will work out better. You rationalize the vagueness by claiming not the be a strategist; the truth is you have no right to philosophize over the matter if you can't concretize your thinking.

In spite of your complicated replies, the question here is simple: Do you think it is wrong for us to take any additional military risks other costs in order to prevent the death of innocents in the aggressor country? I'm not asking you for a calculus; I'm asking you for a principle. Obviously the calculus would be irrelevant if you disagreed with the principle--if you thought that any cost, however small, was too much, then you don't need a calculus.

Chris has already answered and I take him to mean: Extra cost and risk isn't inherently wrong, but he doesn't know how we would decide how much is acceptable. Is this your position as well?

You wrote:

"Chris & Dan: For the record, I have not stated my position yet. Except to say that *yours* is not the Objectivist position."

This is correct.  You have asserted that my position is false without justifying that assertion, and without offering an alternative view.  Looking back over your previous posts, as you recommended, I'm having difficulty finding any substantive criticism of my view, except you say that it is "a caricature of Objectivism."  This is why Chris and I are guessing what your viewpoint actually is.  This is also the reason why I haven’t responded to you in depth.  Your criticisms are unclear. 

I’m still not exactly sure what you’re asking, but I think you want clarity about the costs of war to a defending nation, and how these costs should be factored into tactical military decisions.  For instance, would it be worth paying more money to ensure that enemy civilians are not affected by the war?  Even $1?  Or: would it be worth risking the lives of more American soldiers to ensure that enemy civilians are not affected by the war?  Even 1 life or a nominal risk of loss of life?  Is it a value at all to preserve the lives of innocents in the enemy country?  

As for financial costs:

The financial burden placed on a defending nation's citizens in war should be a consideration for its government.  Efforts should be made to minimize this burden.  This is why it is better to end a war quickly and permanently, if possible.  As I’ve argued previously, the proper function of a government is to protect the lives and property of those within its boundaries.  This implies that a government should act responsibly with the funds provided by its citizens.

As for the cost in lives:

There can be no proportionality between individuals in an enemy aggressor nation and individuals in a free, defending nation. There is no calculus for how many Americans must die before it is appropriate to attack enemy civilians. There is no rule for how many of theirs we can kill for each one of ours they kill. The only moral foundation for the calculus of war is this:  A defending nation has the right to do anything and everything it must to defend its citizens against attacks of an enemy aggressor nation.

That said, I do think that there could be a value in preserving the lives of innocents in an enemy nation.  The value is that their presence makes it more likely that the enemy nation will become peaceful for the long term.  Also, as Brooke and Epstein said, “it is good to have more rational, pro-America people in the world.”  If it were determined that preserving the lives of innocents in an enemy nation would be the best way to protect the long term freedom of civilians in the defending nation, then it should be done if possible.  Note that the principle is still this: A defending nation has the right to do anything and everything it must to defend its citizens against attacks of an enemy aggressor nation.

My point, Shayne, is that the question of how much money or how many lives it is worth to protect innocent civilians in an enemy nation is a wrong-headed question.  If it is a value to protect them, it is only a value insofar as it benefits the defending nation in the longterm, i.e., if the cost to the defending nation is less long term.

Hopefully this answers your question.  If you’re looking for a specific formula for: how much money spent on military technology = how many innocents saved in the enemy country = how much long term value it is to the defending nation, then I don’t know.  It depends on the context of the situation and I’m not a military strategist anyway. 

--Dan Edge

In addition, modern military technology enables us to carefully destroy selected targets, reducing unnecessary civilian casualties. So that, for example, as Craig Biddle suggests, if we wanted to destroy all the mosques and madrassas in Iran - ideally, when they are packed full with their imams and drone-like followers (who enjoy chanting "Down with America")- we can accomplish that with a few thousand Cruise missiles - and in the process reduce casualties to the more rational and less anti-American segment of the population. What could be nicer?

The problem with this Fred, is that in Muslim theocracies everone is required to go to the Mosques in obedience of Islamic law, henceforth there is no discerning who is supportive of the regime and who is not by this manner.

L W

It implies that it would be immoral to spend a dime to save a human life, or take even a minor risk to save a hundred innocents, because what it actually says is virtually nothing: "If it is possible to isolate innocent individuals—such as dissidents, freedom fighters, and children—without military cost, they should not be killed"--this statement is so obvious and uncontroversial that either it is empty and bad writing, or what they really mean by it *must* be something else, something they dare not name explicitly. Indeed, it's very likely the thing Dan has refused to clarify for us so far.

Shayne's rendering of what he believes to be the underlying meaning in the Brooke and Epstein article is right on target. They have left such a large and ambiguous interpretation of exactly what they mean and the manner in which it would be applied in wartime, as to be of no use whatsoever in these types of discussions.

Extrapolated to what some may think of as an extreme, the argument could be made that flying a single plane over, or landing a single ground troop in a hostile country where there existed one single person capable of picking up a weapon and bringing harm and damage to our military people and our possessions would give us not only the right, but would make it obligatory on us to kill every person in
that country who could even remotely be a danger.

This is the type of thinking that brings on the initiation of nuclear warfare from those who believe this to be the ultimate solution when faced with aggressor nations.

L W

I don't know why you think you agree with Dan. You and he have radically different viewpoints.

I haven't purported to label your views as anything; however, I do present my views in contrast to a mainstream view, i.e., Just War theory and whatever variants of it. You're asking a question about my position; I'm answering and placing it in contrast to a widely-held theory. In what way haven't I answered your question, then? While there are still questions to be answered and clarifications to be made about the options I mention, my answer to your immediate question here is that it's a matter of options (in contrast to being a matter of duty).

Well, you start off your second paragraph saying that I give an implicit answer anyway, i.e., that it can be proper (as an option) to spare innocents on the enemy side at (some) extra cost to one's own. I don't have a great answer right off what the specifics of this might involve. I think that standard military procedure in KASSer years past has made some allowance for this where a natural human revulsion to killing non-combatants exists.

The position that Dan and I share is that specifically targetting certain non-combatant targets is within the realm of appropriate policy options that we have a right to consider. And that's a controversial position in constrast to other, widely-held views about justice in war. I use the general identifier "Just War theory" for those views, as the mainstream view takes those options off the table. The mainstream view (I take it) is that actions like the fire-bombing of Tokyo were too inhuman to be considered in warfare nowadays by decent and civilized nations. And that seems to be well-reflected in current politically-acceptable military policy.

Iraq is one story with its own variables; the obvious case where we have a terrorist enemy that harbored bin Laden and enslaved its populations is the Taliban in Afghanistan. This is a case where we have the means to wipe the fuckers out, but don't have the will to do what's necessary to do so because of what's politically acceptable. Doing what's necessary may involve some pretty ugly numbers of civilian casualties. So I'd say that the U.S. is hamstrung by some variant of PC, Just-War theory. (This is a disturbing sign that the U.S. isn't going to have the will to do what's needed to neutralize a threat like Iran. Iran, a terrorist entity, shouldn't be trusted to do nuclear anything, and the U.S. should go after Iran at the first sign that it's pursuing nuclear anything. And yet it's allowing Iran to do a stalling act in the name of PC "diplomacy," as if a terrorist entity is capable of such.)

Oops, went off on a "tangent" again....

Chris, my question was clear. You may want to talk about "Just War Theory", fine, but please don't pretend to be answering me while going off on your own little tangent. It makes it look like I'm advancing "Just War" theory and you are answering me about that.

That said, it looks like in your tangent there was an implicit answer: you think it *can* be proper to spend extra money or take greater risk to avoid killing innocents, that it depends. On what you don't specify, other than to say it's an "option". The natural question is of course how we would decide. E.g., suppose some of us wanted to spend some extra money or have soldiers take extra risks and some didn't, then how do you resolve the conflict?

Also, I think your position puts you starkly at odds with Dan's. I think Dan would say that it's intrinsically bad to exercise this "option" (but he wouldn't use the word "intrinsically"). Quoting from something he supported earlier: "If it is possible to isolate innocent individuals—such as dissidents, freedom fighters, and children—***without military cost***, they should not be killed..." [emphasis mine].

So far Dan has persistently refused to clarify the ambiguity here. I'm starting to think he is evading the issue on purpose. Namely, that this position says it's OK to spare innocents if there is zero cost, but it does not say that it's OK to spare them if there is a cost, even a small cost. On the contrary, it implies the opposite: that *any* cost, however small, would be wrong to bear.

It implies that it would be immoral to spend a dime to save a human life, or take even a minor risk to save a hundred innocents, because what it actually says is virtually nothing: "If it is possible to isolate innocent individuals—such as dissidents, freedom fighters, and children—without military cost, they should not be killed"--this statement is so obvious and uncontroversial that either it is empty and bad writing, or what they really mean by it *must* be something else, something they dare not name explicitly. Indeed, it's very likely the thing Dan has refused to clarify for us so far.

I'll be happy to amplify, though. The Just War theorists like to put things in terms of what we're under a duty to do or not do in waging a war. I believe that it's the standard Just War position that innocents on the other side should be spared (that we under a duty to spare them) at some cost to ourselves. I, on the other hand, think of it in terms of what's optional -- that it's not some kind of intrinsic command either that (a) we must spare them or (b) that we must not spare them if there is a cost to us in doing so. As it is, the U.S. even in its more KASS days would be willing to undergo some small extra cost, as a matter of gratuity or generosity or benevolence or niceness, to avoid inflicting more casualties on the other side. That's not a matter of duty, but of options. That is to say, in the appropriate context, if you place such-and-such a value on X, then you should be willing to give up some of Y. That's the only legitimate basis on which we might, say, avoid bombing a nursery at some cost to soldiers' lives on our side. Then, I could probably imagine a scenario where the enemy is vicious enough and the war situation desperate enough that we just give up trying to be nice. Short of that, I actually think that most people who enter into the military just wouldn't find it in them to carry out otherwise heinous-looking acts. Sure, raping the enemy's women and children might be a way to weaken their wartime resolve, but you have to wonder about the mindset of soldiers who'd do more than readily do it. I don't think I'd be able to get it up.

Like I said before, though, consider the option -- ruled out by some variant of Just War Theory -- of bombing the innocent children of government officials, given the particular military effectiveness of their deaths over other childrens' deaths. If we know that bombing Qaddafi's family is a much more effective way of getting him in line and saving lots more deaths, time, etc., then that's morally open to a defender nation, and arguably something that it should do. It did get him to shape up, after all.

Chris & Dan: For the record, I have not stated my position yet. Except to say that *yours* is not the Objectivist position.

What I am primarily trying to do so far is to get you to own up to what you are saying. Instead what I've gotten is a lot of nervous rambling, including totally unwarranted presumptions about what you think I think.

What is so difficult about affirming that "Yes, one dime of extra military cost is too much to spend to save the life of an innocent**"? That is what you mean, so why not do the honest thing here and just answer?

Chris you came closest when you said "If there's no cost to the defendor nation to spare innocents, then they should be spared." This is too weak though, isn't it? Doesn't it need to say: "If there's ANY cost to the defender nation to spare innocents, then they should NOT be spared." That is what you actually mean here, correct? Why not put it into the clearest, least ambiguous form?

**Note to Chris: obviously I mean "on their side".

Dan, your indignation with me is ironic, since it's *you* who are not reading carefully. Specifically, you put these words in my mouth:

"[It's wrong to bomb toddlers] because we would be violating their rights."

"It's not enough to regurgitate the non-initiation of force principle and rationalistically apply it to the context of war."

Just try to back up these with something I actually said (I myself can find where I said exactly the opposite). You'll find that you'll fail. Which should cause some reflection on your part if you are truly sincere.

You don't like me getting "hostile" with you but then you fabricate my position for me. Let's take it for granted that you mean well. You seem to (though I think that true sincerity over time leads to more skill with properly representing one's opponent than you've demonstrated here). I still think that metaphorically slapping you upside the head for being so sloppy with your opponents' words is warranted. You intend to be a scholar, and think of yourself as being a careful thinker. That you actually are NOT being careful while you simultaneously flaunt how careful you are I think earns you some scolding. Don't take it personally.

Dan, I would like to question a statement you made.
“Rights are moral principles that define man's needs in a social context.”

How can rights be defined as moral principals, when morality is generally based according to religious principals? Morals differ greatly to each individual. Who is he, who has the right to lay down the moral principals and who is he to enforce such?

I would say that, rights are above and beyond morality. Don’t we all have the right to be (immoral) without breaking the law or hurting another human being?

Your question was just so horribly offensive, no one wanted to talk anymore!

Actually, I've been winding down on this issue, I feel like I have it pretty well understood.

In answer to your question, I agree with Brooke/Epstein, but I don't think they are arguing that dissidents or freedom fighters or toddlers are off-limits in principle.  Here's the quote from their article that I think you're referring to:

"Insofar as the innocents cannot be isolated in the achievement of our military objectives, however, sparing their lives means sacrificing our own; and although the loss of their lives is unfortunate, we should kill them without hesitation."

One could take that to mean that innocents should never be targeted if they can be isolated.  But when they say "isolated in the acheivement of our military objectives" (italics mine), I take that to mean that it's possible that there are situations where military objectives could require the killing of innocents like, for instance, the family of political figures.  That would be consistent with the view they take through the rest of the article.

It would need to be demonstrated that such tactics are actually effective before they are used (which may not be possible).  In any case, the principle remains the same: the defending nation has the moral right to do anytyhing it needs to do to defend its citizens.  If targeting innocents is not an effective tactic, it would be immoral for us to do so.  If it *is* effective, then it is morally obligatory to do so.  I'm sure Brooke/Epstein would agree with this.

What, did my question stop the thread dead in its tracks?

So, is it your position that the U.S. shouldn't target the toddlers because, strategically, doing so doesn't expedite the war effort?

Or, is it that the (non-collateral) targetting of the toddlers is morally off-limits in principle for reasons suggested by the Brook/Epstein article -- that, like dissidents and freedom fighters, they're fully innocent of contributing to the enemy war effort?

I'm not sure on this one. I see the example of the U.S.'s bombing of Qaddafi's family, killing his baby daughter, and how he shaped up after that. And the "off limits in principle" idea won't distinguish the innocent children of gov't officials from innocent children generally.

... and it should put paid to the canard of the anarcho-Saddamites that we "hawks" salivate at the thought of the slaughter of innocents. Should, but it won't, of course.

What you don't understand is that you're effectively placing a higher value on civilians in the aggressor nation than those in the defending nation. When you find that your argument, in practice, leads to this inversion of values, then you ought to rethink the principle. As it is, George, the direction you've continually taken in this discussion is hopelessly rationalistic.

Poor George still hasn't grasped the rationalism thing. But it's not a case of his innocently catalysing an inversion of values; his values are already inverted.

Linz

• Login or register to post comments